"Star Trek" - My Thoughts

"Star Trek" is the movie that I've anticipated the most over the past few years. It has finally made it's way to theaters and I got to see it earlier this evening.

What did I think?

Read on for my thoughts.

Make no mistake - I'm a huge Star Trek fan. I've written a few blog entries concerning Star Trek that have mentioned how I've been looking forward to this new movie. (Just look in my archives for the tag "Star Trek" if you want to see my previous posts.)

I've read a number of articles online recently about "Star Trek" and it seems as if the overwhelming majority of articles and reviews have been positive. Heck, even Rotten Tomatoes currently has "Star Trek" rated at a 96% "freshness" rating.

A 96%???! When is the last time a major studio release has been rated 96% on Rotten Tomatoes? Or, better yet, when is the last time a Star Trek movie has been rated that high?!! (You might actually be surprised if you read this article.)

Of course, there are detractors. There are fans of the original series who are not willing to give this new movie a chance. These are probably the same "fans" who shunned "Star Trek: The Next Generation" when it premiered. There were a lot of "fans" at the time who claimed "It's not Star Trek without Kirk and Spock" or made similar comments... but do you know what? When they gave it a chance, the majority of those fans ended up liking the show!

To anyone who is dead-set against this movie because it changes established history or because you feel that only William Shatner can portray James T. Kirk or even because you despise JJ Abrams, you simply need to chill out and see it and then weigh the movie on its own merits.

Now... as for my take.

I really liked this movie. I wished that I would have loved it, but I didn't feel quite that strongly about it.

One of the key points of this movie is that it changes established history. The events which occur in this movie take place in an alternate reality (or timeline) from what we know from the original Star Trek series. I'm OK with this, but for any Star Trek fan who takes exception to this, I must point out that this idea was already used in an episode of The Next Generation called "Yesterday's Enterprise". In that episode, the Enterprise-C appears through a time-rift in the time of the Enterprise-D and it changes their reality. So, alternate realities are really nothing new to the Star Trek universe. Even the Mirror Universe is yet another example of this.

Actually, I should probably clarify my feelings about re-writing history by saying that I'm OK with this changed timeline after the time at which the reality-changing event occurs. At first glance, it appeared that this new movie changed events which occurred prior to this reality-changing event and it distracted me somewhat during the movie, but now that I think about it, that isn't the case.

To elaborate on this, I'm going to have to reveal some of the events of the movie, so if you don't want to be subjected to minor spoilers, please exit now.

In this movie, the Enterprise is "brand new" as it leaves Earth and Christopher Pike is the ship's Captain. Within a short time, Kirk becomes Captain. It's been established that Pike was Captain of the Enterprise for a much longer time than shown in this movie.

Along that same line, Kirk's first Starship assignment was not the Enterprise. He was assigned to the USS Farragut when he graduated from Starfleet Academy and then becomes Captain of the Enterprise at the age of 33 - the youngest Starship Captain ever. In this new timeline, Kirk goes directly from Starfleet Academy (where he just defeated the Kobayashi Maru scenario) to the Enterprise and accelerates his becoming Captain of the Enterprise. In fact, Kirk now becomes Captain of the Enterprise around the age of 27 since it is mentioned in the movie that 27 years pass between the time Nero (the movie's villain who is a Romulan from the future) attacks the USS Kelvin (when Kirk is born) and Nero's attack on Vulcan.

So, I was distracted during the movie as I wondered about previous events such as Kirk serving on the Farragut and Pike and the Enterprise crew's experience on Talos IV, but now I realize the movie isn't ignoring that "canon". It is overwriting it and I'm OK with that.

However, I am wondering why Number One (Captain Pike's female first officer who was portrayed by Majel Barret Roddenberry in the original pilot) wasn't in this movie. She should have been Pike's first officer - not Spock. Also, Dr. Boyce (also from the original pilot) should have been the Enterprise's Chief Medical Officer. During the movie, I know McCoy said the Chief Medical Officer was killed during Nero's attack, but I don't believe he said it was Dr. Boyce.

But enough nit-picking about these timeline changes.

I was also somewhat confused by the design of the new Enterprise. It appears the bridge is no longer it's own deck at the top level of the saucer section since the characters leave the bridge and walk to other areas without using the turbo-lift in a couple of scenes. It was also somewhat strange that the bridge was so high-tech, but yet engineering looked like something from a modern-day submarine. (They actually filmed some of the engineering scenes in a brewery - which explains the large tanks.) My biggest complaint about the re-designed Enterprise is that when viewed from the front, the nacelles (or engines if you want to call them that) are too close together. Other than that, the new design of the ship is very cool.

As for the cinematography, this movie looks incredible. The special effects are top-notch. However, I really, really wish directors would stop the jerky camera style of shooting action. I could understand it in JJ Abrams' "Cloverfield" where the action is shot with a video camera from the character's point of view... but it's not necessary to use a jerky camera style to try to heighten the excitement in every movie these days. I could have also done without the flashes of light on the screen during most bridge scenes.

Concerning the plot, I don't want to go back to nit-picking, but I must say that I find it hard to believe that Nero just sits idly by for 27 years between the time the USS Kelvin is destroyed and Leonard Nimoy's Spock arrives. And speaking of Nimoy's Spock, it was really great to see him again. However, I had a problem with Spock claiming that Nero put him on the snow planet so he could watch Nero's attack on Vulcan. From the one scene, it looked as if Spock could see the attack in the sky, but the snow planet was not that close to Vulcan! If anything, I would think that Nero would have kept Spock on the mining ship so he could watch Spock's reaction to the attack on Vulcan.

Also, what in the heck is "red matter"????!

On the plus side, all of the characters have their chance to shine and they are fairly true to the characters we know and love. You have the grumpy Leonard McCoy who has just gone through a divorce and his ex-wife left him with just his bones. (Get it? Bones!!) The young genius, Pavel Checkov. The swordsman, Sulu. The beautiful Uhura, The half-human, half-Vulcan Spock who is fighting to control his emotions. Only Kirk is noticeably different from the character we know. At the beginning of the movie, James Tiberius Kirk is a young punk, but when challenged, he rises up and starts to become the man we know.

I'm still not too sure about the choice of Simon Pegg as Scotty, however. Scotty was always good for a laugh now and then, but it seemed like his character was almost a comedian in this movie.

Since this movie shows how the Enterprise crew comes together, non-fans of the the original Star Trek can come along for the ride and hopefully will become fans. As I waited for the crowd to disperse before leaving the theater, I overheard two women seated near me talking and one said "It was a lot better than I expected". I think a lot of people will be pleasantly surprised by this movie. It really is a Star Trek movie for everybody, but there are enough references throughout to make Trekkies/Trekkers smile.

I think my overall feelings about a movie can be determined by whether or not, or how quickly I want to see the movie again. Do I have an overwhelming desire to see it again ASAP? (Like "The Dark Knight".) Do I not feel the need to see it again in a theater, but I rush out to buy the DVD when it's released? (Like "Pineapple Express" or "Zack and Miri".) Do I never, ever want to see the movie again for as long as I live? (Like "The Fountain".)

With "Star Trek", I definitely want to see it again in a theater. I don't know if I'll go again this weekend, but I will see it again. I'd love to see "Star Trek" in an IMAX theater, but unfortunately, the Harrisburg IMAX decided not to show it. Based on the crowds at the local multiplexes, that may prove to be a bad decision for them.

I attended a 6:30 PM showing at the Camp Hill Cinema Center Friday evening and the theater was approximately 80-85% full. When I left, the parking lot was packed - except for spaces vacated by others who had attended the same showing. On the way home, I passed the Regal/Hoyt's theater along I-81 and their parking lot looked full. True - all of those people weren't there to see "Star Trek", but I believe this movie is going to make a lot of money this weekend. Paramount is claiming they are only expecting it to earn $50 million, but I believe those are very conservative estimates.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate "Star Trek" at 8.5.

Do yourself a favor and go see this movie. (Especially those of you who hate the fact that they are rebooting the series!)

Related Stories

Featured Story

Get 'Today's Front Page' in your inbox

This newsletter is sent every morning at 6 a.m. and includes the morning's top stories, a full list of obituaries, links to comics and puzzles and the most recent news, sports and entertainment headlines.

optionalCheck here if you do not want to receive additional email offers and information.See our privacy policy

Thank you for signing up for 'Today's Front Page'

To view and subscribe to any of our other newsletters, please click here.